See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 05 May 2009
<scribe> Scribe: mphillip
Derek: No progress on action 68
Roland: Eric has chased up action 73 by email. He received a response from Mark Baker, but nothing yet from Harald
<trackbot> ACTION-73 Follow up IRI jndi issue after next week with Harald closed
Roland: We agreed last week that
we would not update the prefix unless necessary
... Therefore we can close action 81
<trackbot> ACTION-81 update the spec. with "jndi-" prefix changes (when we get confirmation from Harald) closed
Roland: So the next step is to
get to candidate recommendation
... Will kick off the process with Yves
Roland: Phil has made some
updates to document test coverage
... Eric has an action to look at WSDL coverage
Phil: Not sure if we necessarily need to associate a test case with every assertion
Roland: We should document that
in the assertions or create a test case which is a 'null' test
... Are there any that need to change before we go to CR?
Phil: For example Protocol-2041
Phil: is not really an assertion
Roland: The table following the assertion lists the values set by a conforming client.
Mark: Perhaps the assertion text should say something like "A conforming sending node MUST set message values according to the table in 2.7.1"
Roland: Or the whole table should be in the assertion
Phil: We probably have this covered by other assertions
Roland: The definition of the
properties does make assertions - for example the deliveryMode
property is covered in Protocol-2005
... The table has the benefit of grouping everything together under the role of the Sending SOAP node
Phil: This is the one-way pattern right?
Roland: Correct, there is the equivalent table for request-response in 2.6.1
Phil: May be worth putting additional text in the assertion to clarify
Roland: e.g. for 2035 "Requesting-Response MEP -requesting SOAP node"
Phil: Or just turn it into a sentence
Roland: Will have a go at improving the wording for 2035, 2039, and 2041
Phil: 2042 needs some rewording too
Roland: Yes, all the faults should already be covered by assertions
Action Roland to Reword the assertions 2035, 2039, and 2041 so that they make more sense
<trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Reword the assertions 2035, 2039, and 2041 so that they make more sense [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-05-12].
action Roland to see whether assertion 2042 can be removed bacause all faults are covered by their own assertion
<trackbot> Created ACTION-85 - See whether assertion 2042 can be removed bacause all faults are covered by their own assertion [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-05-12].
Phil: Also look at 2024
Roland: That would cover most of the assertions without test cases
<scribe> chair: Roland
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: mphillip Inferring ScribeNick: mphillip Default Present: Roland, +1.708.246.aaaa, Derek, +1.919.663.aabb, +0196270aacc, mphillip, +1.512.286.aadd, Phil Present: Roland +1.708.246.aaaa Derek +1.919.663.aabb +0196270aacc mphillip +1.512.286.aadd Phil Regrets: Eric Yves Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009May/0003.html Found Date: 05 May 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-soap-jms-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]